Share this story

Welcome to Edition 2.10 of the Rocket Report! We are stuffed with news this week, running over 2,000 words with lots of things coming out of the Small Satellite Conference in Utah this week. But there was also plenty happening with bigger rockets, including launches of the Atlas V, Falcon 9, and Ariane 5 rockets, as well as developments with Starship and the Space Launch System vehicles.

As always, we welcome reader submissions, and if you don't want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.

Rocket Lab seeks to reuse its Electron rocket. On Tuesday, the US-based company Rocket Lab announced that it had begun to explore the possibility of reusing its smallsat launch vehicle, Electron. This represented a change of heart for the company, whose chief executive, Peter Beck, had previously dismissed the possibility of re-using the Electron booster. In a lengthy interview with Ars, Beck explained the company's decision by saying customer demand exceeds its capability to build Electrons.

Not a bad problem to have ... Beck: "Scaling production is not a trivial thing. We need to quadruple production over the next couple of years. You can take any product on this planet—a chair or a consumer product—and say 'I want a 4x production of that product.' And that's no trivial thing to do. When you have a supply chain as they have in the aerospace industry, which is really quite fragile, you're not just asking yourself to scale four times—you're asking your suppliers to scale four times. Take the engine, for example: even if we wanted to double engine production and order a bunch more printers, those printers are six- or 12-month lead time. Really, we need to be all in. We're crazy-expanding our factories and hiring. But this is an additional step we need to take to increase launch opportunities."

Vector lands its first Air Force mission. Small launch provider Vector Launch has received a $3.4 million contract from the Air Force Rocket Systems Launch Program office to lift experimental satellites to low Earth orbit, SpaceNews reports. The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center announced the award Wednesday for a payload that will consist of multiple 3U and larger US government cubesats bound for low Earth orbit. Launch is scheduled for the third quarter of 2021 from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.

Air Force supporting innovation in launch ... "The Small Rocket Program-Orbital framework provides orbital launch services to academia, DOD, and other government agencies for operations, research, development, and test missions and is a shining example of SMC's drive to provide innovation and partnership across the enterprise faster than ever before," Col. Robert Bongiovi, director of SMC's Launch Enterprise, said in a statement. (submitted by Ken the Bin and Unruly Cow)

Sign up for the Rocket Report

First Name

Last Name

Email

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Benchmark signs on for Firefly's first launch. Benchmark Space Systems has reached a deal with Firefly to demonstrate the launch preparation and safety features of its DFAST propulsion system before running through a suite of maneuvers on-orbit, Satnews reports. The Alpha rocket's first flight will target an altitude of 300km, where the demonstrator mission can test its capabilities. It will fit within a 3U CubeSat.

Slip confirmed ... Firefly has yet to announce other customers for its inaugural Alpha mission, although the company appears to have confirmed that the first Alpha flight will slip into the first quarter of 2020. It had been targeting the end of 2019 for a flight from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

Orbex wins contract for launch from Scotland. The United Kingdom-based small-launch vehicle developer announced Wednesday that another British company, In-Space Missions, awarded it a contract for the launch of a small satellite. Orbex's Prime small-launch vehicle will launch the Faraday-2b satellite in 2022 from the Space Hub Sutherland spaceport, which is to be developed in northern Scotland. Terms were not disclosed, SpaceNews reported.

An English affair ... In-Space Missions provides flight services for payloads of various types, aggregating them on a single spacecraft. The company's first satellite, Faraday-1, is a six-unit cubesat that will launch later this year on a Rocket Lab Electron. In-Space said one advantage of flying with Orbex was an end-to-end regulatory environment as both companies were based in one country. (submitted by Unruly Cow and Ken the Bin)

Speaking of that Scottish spaceport ... The real-estate companies working on a land deal for the facility have signed a 75-year lease for the site to be used for Space Hub Sutherland, TechCrunch reports. Orbex will be the Scottish Highlands site's primary tenant and plans to begin launching from Sutherland in the early 2020s. Construction on the site may begin next year.

Not quite a done deal ... Completion of the land lease remains dependent on final approval being given for the spaceport, which is in process as the groups behind its development, including the UK Space Agency, are finalizing designs, funding, and environmental impact studies. However, this sounds like a case of everyone wanting to make this happen, so expect it to do so. (submitted by danneely)

Spaceflight buys first launch of India's new rocket. Spaceflight announced August 6 that it will purchase the first commercial launch of a new Indian vehicle, called the Small Satellite Launch Vehicle, which is scheduled to make its debut later this year. According to SpaceNews, the rideshare integrator will launch payloads for an undisclosed US satellite constellation customer.

A good deal ... India's new smallsat launcher will be able to carry up to 500 kilograms to mid-inclination low Earth orbits and 300 kilograms to Sun-synchronous orbit. While the company didn't disclose pricing, Spaceflight president and Chief Executive Curt Blake said the price is "a little bit better" than rideshares on India's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle. "In terms of small launch vehicles, it's much better than what's out there." (submitted by Ken the Bin)

227 Reader Comments

For the curious, I`m sharing this sheet. Google Sheets link (edit: MECO velocities of F9/FH for the last 2.5 years)

Last year I`ve made something similar, but now the time-frame is widened (Jan 2017 onward)Periodically I`ll update it with new data.

It`s interesting to see that the highest F9 (non FH) booster MECO velocity is not with Block5, but Block 3 from May 2017 (Inmarsat-5 F4) The next highest is again B3, which means we are still to witness the potential of B5 (for F9 case)

Currently B5 sits at position 5 on the list (or 3 if you ignore FH) Waiting for the proper client.

Higher cadence? ... The review notes that SpaceX plans to continue flying its Falcon fleet at a very high launch cadence for at least another five years, with up to 20 launches per year from LC-39A and up to 50 launches per year from LC-40 by the year 2024.

Musk did address this by saying (in answer to a Teslarati article about it) Bold mine.

Quote:

Wouldn’t read too much into this. Likely to be fewer F9/FH flights, but possibly an order of magnitude more than these numbers in Starship flights.

These rocket reports are great. Best new feature at Ars (even though they're not that new anymore).

One minor correction:

"SpaceX hopes to migrate to Starship and Super Heavy as its primary launch vehicle in the mid-2020s, but the company ***but*** said it will continue to use Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy based on customer demand."

I always thought it was advantageous to be nearer the equator. If uniformity of regulation is an advantage, there are various bits of British land (or even European land, if one ignores a certain unfortunate upcoming event) rather nearer the equator that could be / is already being used for space flight.

One potential advantage, speaking as someone who lives in London, is that the Scottish Govt is turning out to be rather more forward looking and supportive of the science community than the miserable shower we have in London / Westminster. No improvement foreseeable now that we’re ruled by the orange one’s annoying younger brother.

"SpaceX hopes to migrate to Starship and Super Heavy as its primary launch vehicle in the mid-2020s, but the company ***but*** said it will continue to use Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy based on customer demand."

It will be interesting how a Brexit no-deal will affect Orbex. It will certainly increase operational and procurement costs, as well as delay delivery of goods from other countries as they sit in port for inspection.

I always thought it was advantageous to be nearer the equator. If uniformity of regulation is an advantage, there are various bits of British land (or even European land, if one ignores a certain unfortunate upcoming event) rather nearer the equator that could be / is already being used for space flight.

One potential advantage, speaking as someone who lives in London, is that the Scottish Govt is turning out to be rather more forward looking and supportive of the science community than the miserable shower we have in London / Westminster. No improvement foreseeable now that we’re ruled by the orange one’s annoying younger brother.

For polar or sun-synchronous orbits, launching from the equator is a detriment. You've got to cancel out the earth's rotational speed (~1,000 mph) before going to orbit. So for those types of orbits you're better off launching from one of the poles - or close to it.

I always thought it was advantageous to be nearer the equator. If uniformity of regulation is an advantage, there are various bits of British land (or even European land, if one ignores a certain unfortunate upcoming event) rather nearer the equator that could be / is already being used for space flight.

One potential advantage, speaking as someone who lives in London, is that the Scottish Govt is turning out to be rather more forward looking and supportive of the science community than the miserable shower we have in London / Westminster. No improvement foreseeable now that we’re ruled by the orange one’s annoying younger brother.

81 weeks lead time just to get it out of the mill? Are they printing these with laser sintering? Or are they just insane?

I really don't get it, and it explains everything that is wrong with SLS. Same issue with their heatshield for Orion, it takes months to build one, and it'll be trash after one use. All that work on a thrust frame and it'll get tossed in the ocean after one use. What a waste.

I realize there are some differences in the specific satellite launch market that each of them serves, and ample reason for each to make these moves regardless of what the other does. That said, this almost feels like a grab-your-popcorn moment.

I'm really wondering how long it will take until one of the really small sat launchers will instead try to build something bigger with the same (very small) payload but fully reusable stages. A Starship nano, so to say... One disadvantage of very small launchers is the relatively high drag losses but this at the same time is a real boon for reusability (much easier to brake high up early during reentry).

I realize there are some differences in the specific satellite launch market that each of them serves, and ample reason for each to make these moves regardless of what the other does. That said, this almost feels like a grab-your-popcorn moment.

What's interesting to me is that Rocket Lab's recovery efforts may not necessarily save them any money. Their rocket is pretty inexpensive and by the time they refurb and certify it for flight again, they've probably eaten up the difference. So their recovery efforts are all about flight cadence. They might not save very much per rocket, but it would certainly save money in not having to double (or more) their production capabilities.

ExoMars 2020 parachute system is said to have failed again on August 5. The previous time it was tested, it suffered tears. This time, it is said to have failed to open. The descent module mockup crashed to the ground. Roscosmos and ESA are yet to confirm. https://ria.ru/20190809/1557321673.html (in Russian)

I realize there are some differences in the specific satellite launch market that each of them serves, and ample reason for each to make these moves regardless of what the other does. That said, this almost feels like a grab-your-popcorn moment.

What's interesting to me is that Rocket Lab's recovery efforts may not necessarily save them any money. Their rocket is pretty inexpensive and by the time they refurb and certify it for flight again, they've probably eaten up the difference. So their recovery efforts are all about flight cadence. They might not save very much per rocket, but it would certainly save money in not having to double (or more) their production capabilities.

I think this is similar to the fairing recovery for SpaceX. Between retrieval and refurb there is going to be some savings vs building a new one but probably not dramatic savings. On the other hand building more production to produce more fairings is probably extremely expensive given the size of the thing. Especially if in a few years you may not need to build any more of them if the line gets retired by Starship.

I realize there are some differences in the specific satellite launch market that each of them serves, and ample reason for each to make these moves regardless of what the other does. That said, this almost feels like a grab-your-popcorn moment.

What's interesting to me is that Rocket Lab's recovery efforts may not necessarily save them any money. Their rocket is pretty inexpensive and by the time they refurb and certify it for flight again, they've probably eaten up the difference. So their recovery efforts are all about flight cadence. They might not save very much per rocket, but it would certainly save money in not having to double (or more) their production capabilities.

But equally not having to double the production capabilities also saves them a huge amount of CapEx and time - and that probably is what offsets the recovery expense.

"It's about an 81-week process from when you order it to when it comes out of the mill to being formed, so it's about a year and a half that it takes to get the structural elements into the factory."

what the hell are they ordering? Do they have to go out and look for the Bauxite first? Do they age it in caves like a fine Roquefort cheese? That's the sort of lead times you used to get when making battleship gun barrels in the run up to World war I.

I realize there are some differences in the specific satellite launch market that each of them serves, and ample reason for each to make these moves regardless of what the other does. That said, this almost feels like a grab-your-popcorn moment.

What's interesting to me is that Rocket Lab's recovery efforts may not necessarily save them any money. Their rocket is pretty inexpensive and by the time they refurb and certify it for flight again, they've probably eaten up the difference. So their recovery efforts are all about flight cadence. They might not save very much per rocket, but it would certainly save money in not having to double (or more) their production capabilities.

Nope. Read the original article. He is saying he can't get the parts fast enough.

Speaking of that Scottish spaceport ... this sounds like a case of everyone wanting to make this happen, so expect it to do so.

Clearly you've not come across many NIMBYs. I'll be blown away if this gets built.

They were already going through the NIMBY phase earlier this year. If its moving like this, then I think they are past that.

Oooh, don't be so sure. The Scottish land ownership system is basically feudal, and extremely weird. Nothing about this spaceport is going to be easy. If they can get it though though It will be perhaps the closest thing to a northern hemisphere version of Roctketlab's launch site in Mahia. It will be spectacularly beautiful. Be prepared for a lot of weather related launch scrubs though.

I always thought it was advantageous to be nearer the equator. If uniformity of regulation is an advantage, there are various bits of British land (or even European land, if one ignores a certain unfortunate upcoming event) rather nearer the equator that could be / is already being used for space flight.

One potential advantage, speaking as someone who lives in London, is that the Scottish Govt is turning out to be rather more forward looking and supportive of the science community than the miserable shower we have in London / Westminster. No improvement foreseeable now that we’re ruled by the orange one’s annoying younger brother.

For polar or sun-synchronous orbits, launching from the equator is a detriment. You've got to cancel out the earth's rotational speed (~1,000 mph) before going to orbit. So for those types of orbits you're better off launching from one of the poles - or close to it.

81 weeks lead time just to get it out of the mill? Are they printing these with laser sintering? Or are they just insane?

I really don't get it, and it explains everything that is wrong with SLS. Same issue with their heatshield for Orion, it takes months to build one, and it'll be trash after one use. All that work on a thrust frame and it'll get tossed in the ocean after one use. What a waste.

I imagine it's a few weeks of actual production, embedded within months of testing and QA, engineering reviews, meetings discussing the engineering reviews, sending out data for independent verification by outside contractors, re-reviewing the independent verification, etc.All capped off with another few months of sign-offs, meetings, and final reviews.

And that's if nothing goes wrong. There will be another round of meetings, production, QA, and meetings every time a flaw is discovered.

I realize there are some differences in the specific satellite launch market that each of them serves, and ample reason for each to make these moves regardless of what the other does. That said, this almost feels like a grab-your-popcorn moment.

What's interesting to me is that Rocket Lab's recovery efforts may not necessarily save them any money. Their rocket is pretty inexpensive and by the time they refurb and certify it for flight again, they've probably eaten up the difference. So their recovery efforts are all about flight cadence. They might not save very much per rocket, but it would certainly save money in not having to double (or more) their production capabilities.

Nope. Read the original article. He is saying he can't get the parts fast enough.

He could. It would just take investment. So there may not be a savings per-docket, but there may be from the supply cost side.

It will be interesting how a Brexit no-deal will affect Orbex. It will certainly increase operational and procurement costs, as well as delay delivery of goods from other countries as they sit in port for inspection.

due to the nature of the industry, it's probably the least of their worries, a rounding error. It will be noticeable more because small launchers have such tight margins already, but if they become operational, the increased costs will be a rounding error to what any customer would end up paying anyways,

It`s interesting to see that the highest F9 (non FH) booster MECO velocity is not with Block5, but Block 3 from May 2017 (Inmarsat-5 F4) The next highest is again B3, which means we are still to witness the potential of B5 (for F9 case)

Currently B5 sits at position 5 on the list (or 3 if you ignore FH) Waiting for the proper client.

The block 5 F9 incorporates enhancements to reduce maintenance and wear and allow a greater number of re-uses including a water cooled heat shield on the bottom and improved COPV helium vessels. It is likely heavier than previous blocks so the block 3 may retain the record.

I realize there are some differences in the specific satellite launch market that each of them serves, and ample reason for each to make these moves regardless of what the other does. That said, this almost feels like a grab-your-popcorn moment.

What's interesting to me is that Rocket Lab's recovery efforts may not necessarily save them any money. Their rocket is pretty inexpensive and by the time they refurb and certify it for flight again, they've probably eaten up the difference. So their recovery efforts are all about flight cadence. They might not save very much per rocket, but it would certainly save money in not having to double (or more) their production capabilities.

Agreed, it probably does save money, on the Op ex and overhead side. Even before taking suppliers into account, and just what they do in house, factory expansions and new equipment cost money even when you aren't using them. It also means that should they catch up with their backlog, and demand slows, they aren't stuck with as much equipment and factory space they aren't currently using.

It`s interesting to see that the highest F9 (non FH) booster MECO velocity is not with Block5, but Block 3 from May 2017 (Inmarsat-5 F4) The next highest is again B3, which means we are still to witness the potential of B5 (for F9 case)

Currently B5 sits at position 5 on the list (or 3 if you ignore FH) Waiting for the proper client.

The block 5 F9 incorporates enhancements to reduce maintenance and wear and allow a greater number of re-uses including a water cooled heat shield on the bottom and improved COPV helium vessels. It is likely heavier than previous blocks so the block 3 may retain the record.

Isn't that more or less guaranteed barring a schedule slip for an existing flight because the tooling has been scrapped to make way for the Vulcan project?

I think production of DIV medium has shut down and ULA has more or less said if anyone wants DIVH beyond the few existing stockpiled vehicles remaining for USAF/NRO they had to say so (and presumably back that with a whopping deposit) before a rapidly approaching date (which may already have passed). The issue in question is likely more when the last one will fly rather than will any more be built.

It`s interesting to see that the highest F9 (non FH) booster MECO velocity is not with Block5, but Block 3 from May 2017 (Inmarsat-5 F4) The next highest is again B3, which means we are still to witness the potential of B5 (for F9 case)

Currently B5 sits at position 5 on the list (or 3 if you ignore FH) Waiting for the proper client.

The block 5 F9 incorporates enhancements to reduce maintenance and wear and allow a greater number of re-uses including a water cooled heat shield on the bottom and improved COPV helium vessels. It is likely heavier than previous blocks so the block 3 may retain the record.

I'm really wondering how long it will take until one of the really small sat launchers will instead try to build something bigger with the same (very small) payload but fully reusable stages. A Starship nano, so to say... One disadvantage of very small launchers is the relatively high drag losses but this at the same time is a real boon for reusability (much easier to brake high up early during reentry).

When it can enable higher cadence at lower costs for their use case. With small launchers, assembly line mass production is a lot easier, provided the suppliers, the only part that they really have to batch out is the printed engines, with larger rockets, you can't really do that as effectively except for the engines and you don't get sufficient regular flight rate to justify it, and won't unless the costs come way down, which is more feasible with reuse.

I'm really wondering how long it will take until one of the really small sat launchers will instead try to build something bigger with the same (very small) payload but fully reusable stages. A Starship nano, so to say... One disadvantage of very small launchers is the relatively high drag losses but this at the same time is a real boon for reusability (much easier to brake high up early during reentry).

When it can enable higher cadence at lower costs for their use case. With small launchers, assembly line mass production is a lot easier, provided the suppliers, the only part that they really have to batch out is the printed engines, with larger rockets, you can't really do that as effectively except for the engines and you don't get sufficient regular flight rate to justify it, and won't unless the costs come way down, which is more feasible with reuse.

OTOH the revenue per flight times current flight rates for small sat launchers works out to a level which precludes a lot of the investment in vertical integration that high cash flow SpaceX has done and reaps the benefit of. When you outsource more components there are more long lead times items and items with potential to go on allocation that can hold you back.

Just Read the Instructions is in transit to somewhere on the East coast. Could be either to Florida to or to Texas. Starlink's operational tempo might need 2 drone ships for recovery; or it might be used as a landing platform in Starship tests. SpaceX apparently hasn't said either way.